Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Estaba Salaverria, a 33-year-old native and citizen of Venezuela proceeding without counsel, filed a verified petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. He entered the United States through the San Ysidro port of entry on February 23, 2023, and was paroled into the country. On September 20, 2026, while driving, he was stopped, arrested, and detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and an administrative warrant for his arrest was issued the same day. He remained continuously detained. He received a Notice to Appear for standard removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a; the notice described him as an arriving alien and noted his parole. Respondent does not contest petitioner's factual allegations, does not argue that petitioner has a criminal history, and does not argue that petitioner is a flight risk or a danger to the community.
The petition was filed on October 9, 2026, and the respondent answered on October 21; Salaverria did not file a reply. The magistrate judge substituted the Warden of California City for ICE as respondent. Liberally construing the pro se petition, the court identified a statutory challenge under the Immigration and Nationality Act and a Fifth Amendment due process challenge, but not a separate prolonged-detention claim. The government nevertheless maintained that detention was mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) because Salaverria was an arriving alien who entered at the border.
The Court’s Holding
The findings and recommendations explain that the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock rejected the government's position: noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior are governed by § 1226 rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A). The court also observed that numerous courts had rejected the government's newer interpretation of those provisions. It further relied on the respondent's acknowledgment that Salaverria's circumstances fell within the category in which prior parole into the United States is more significant than the manner of entry. On that combined basis, the court concluded that the mandatory-detention argument failed and recommended granting relief on statutory grounds.
Because the statutory ground entitled Salaverria to the release he sought, the magistrate judge did not decide his remaining due process claim. The recommendation calls for his immediate release, return of any personal possessions and documents in the respondent's custody, and copies of the findings and release order at or near release. It also recommends barring re-detention unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence, at a constitutionally adequate pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that custody is justified by flight risk or dangerousness. That restriction would not govern detention authorized on different grounds, such as §§ 1226(c) or 1231.
Key Takeaways
- The court treated Salaverria's 2023 parole as significant and rejected the government's effort to require detention under § 1225(b)(2) based on his border entry and arriving-alien designation.
- Rodriguez Vazquez supplied controlling Ninth Circuit authority that people apprehended in the interior while present without admission fall under § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- The recommendation rests on statutory grounds, leaving the Fifth Amendment due process claim undecided because resolving it was unnecessary to provide the requested release.
- The proposed protection against re-detention is conditional and does not address detention supported by different statutory authority.
- These are recommendations to the assigned district judge, not a final judgment; the document allows written objections within seven days and responses within seven days after service of objections.
Why It Matters
The decision applies controlling circuit law to a detention dispute in which the government alleged neither flight risk nor dangerousness and conceded the importance of the petitioner's prior parole. It illustrates how the statutory distinction between §§ 1225 and 1226 can determine whether a person challenging immigration custody may obtain release through habeas corpus.
The recommended relief extends beyond release by addressing return of documents, limits on re-detention, and a status report within seven days after adoption. Adoption, entry of judgment, and case closure remain recommendations rather than completed actions in this document.